|
| |
| Employment Rights Bill Published | A Gentle Reminder to Residential Landlords | The William Hill Case |
| |
|
| |
| Employment Rights Bill Published |
| |
The Minister for Enterprise Trade and Employment has published the Employment Rights Compliance Bill which substantially revises the law in relation to the enforcement of employment rights. On it’s publication the Minister stated that “this bill will modernise the labour inspectorate, strengthen enforcement of employment rights and work permits, promote greater compliance in the workplace and increase the penalties for those employers who seek to gain advantage by denying employees their entitlements under law” Some of the key provisions in the Bill are:
- Establishment of the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA) on a statutory basis.
- Increased powers for labour inspectors including the prosecution of summary offences by the NERA
- Increased penalties for breaches of employment law
- Protection of whistleblowers in the event of breaches of employment law being reported in good faith
- Requirements for employers to retain employment related documents for specifi ed periods
|
| back to top >> |
| |
 |
|
| |
| A Gentle Reminder to Residential Landlords |
| |
Subject to limited exceptions, all landlords must register details of Irish residential tenancies with the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB) within one month of their commencement.
If they do not, landlords can be prosecuted and face a fi ne of up to €3,000, and/or up to 6 months imprisonment. Even if they are not prosecuted, landlords registering outside the specifi ed time period will have to pay double the fee for late registration currently €140. The registration requirements relate to each particular tenancy and not to a property; therefore each time the tenancy changes in a property a new application for registration must be made. |
Landlords who fail to register are ineligible to deduct any interest paid on monies borrowed to purchase, improve of repair the rented residential premises from their Irish rental income for tax purposes.
Finally the PRTB will not deal with any disputes relating to residential tenancies unless the tenancy is properly registered with the PRTB.
back to top >> |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| The William Hill Case |
| |
The extent of a bookmaker’s duty of care to its customers was recently addressed in England in the much publicised William Hill case. Graham Calvert, a greyhound trainer, sued the prominent bookmakers for more than £2 million in compensation for the losses he suffered. Mr. Calvert stated that he lost more than £2 million as well as his marriage, livelihood and health as a result of a six month gambling spree in 2006. He claimed that he was manipulated by the bookmakers and argued that they were guilty of ‘negligent encouragement and inducement’ by not acting to curb Mr. Calvert’s gambling even though he had indicated he wanted them to on at least two occasions.
The Court heard that between the years 2000 and 2005 Mr. Calvert made approximately £50,000 profi t per year from gambling. Mr. Calvert told the court that his demise came about when the William Hill Company limited his bets on greyhound racing, a sport he knew well, and he then started to place bets on horseracing and golf.
It was argued on behalf of Mr. Calvert that William Hill had sought to encourage Mr. Calvert to go on huge betting sprees, breaching their own ‘self-exclusion’ policy. Under this procedure, which is designed to protect addictive gamblers, Mr. Calvert’s account was closed for six months and he was barred from placing telephone wagers. However, Mr. Calvert circumvented this by opening a new account under the same name but with a different credit card. It was under this new account that Mr. Calvert lost £347,000 on a single bet when he placed the wager on America to win the Ryder cup in 2006.However, Mr. Justice Michael Briggs, in the High Court, held that William Hill owed no duty of care to their customers to protect them from the fi nancial and psychological consequences of their gambling. The Judge opinioned that had William Hill taken care to exclude Mr. Calvert from telephone gambling for six months, his gambling disorder would still probably have brought about his financial ruin, but over a longer period of time.This decision will bring a sense of relief to bookmakers who, if the Court had found in favour of Mr. Calvert, would have been subject to increased law suits from their customers.
back to top >> |
|
| |
| |
|
|
| These are intended as a general guide to the subject matter, it should not be used as a basis for descisions. For this purpose advice should be obtained which takes into account all the client's circumstances. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information. In view of its purpose the reader will appreciate that we are unable to accept liability for any errors or omissions which may arise. |
|
|
